Search
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated A Vow So Bold and Deadly in Books
Jun 17, 2021
Regular readers will know that I devoured the Cursebreaker series earlier in the year but Netgalley were generous enough to provide the opportunity to listen to this fantastic audiobook in exchange for an honest review.
The final book in the Cursebreakers series is a hard thing to come to terms with. Brigid Kemmerer has been messing with our hearts for 2 books so far and she isn’t about to let us go without a fight! Rhen and Grey are on opposite sides of a war, Harper is (deservedly) super mad at Rhen and Lilith has returned, seemingly unharmed. Is there nothing that can stop the enchantress?
Similarly to the previous two books, A Vow so Bold and Deadly is written from multiple POVs but what I loved in comparison to A Heart so Fierce and Broken is that we got a lot more of Harper! I really felt that Lia Mara took a bit of Harper’s “airtime” in the last book.
I also specifically loved the audiobook version because any third party’s speech within a character’s POV is done in that character’s voice – Rhen voicing Lilith is particularly hilarious.
The characters themselves seem to fall in my favour as we progress through the series and AVSBAD was no exception.
I still loved Harper with her fierceness and her sarcasm. I think the physical journey in the book (this is me trying to not give any spoilers) really spoke to her as a character and her unwavering, loyal nature and the fact that her anger towards Rhen took a long time to dissipate felt very real. I also loved her friendship with Zo but I must admit that sometimes Harper did border on petty – I guess she is fairly young though.
Lia Mara was a great character in AHSFAB, she was a breath of fresh air and I really admired her fight for peace in a violent kingdom. However, shacking up with Grey has made this Queen a wet fish! For a woman who has been raised with the notion that you do not need a man to rule Lia Mara severely disappoints. I really didn’t understand her character in the final book, she was unable to stand up for herself and totally dependent on Grey, even pining after him at times. It was sickening.
Grey has been my favourite in both the previous books, even when he was scary Grey! Don’t get me wrong he hasn’t totally changed and it is nice to see his struggles in gaining the loyalty of people in Shyl Shallow BUT his coldness towards Harper and THAT ending….nah it didn’t sit well with me. The fact that Grey has a claim to Emberfall is bad enough (it seems to be the only Kingdom in the fictional universe which includes bastards in the laws of succession) but to completely disregard Rhen is not the Grey the readers know and love.
Speaking of Rhen, and I’m going to get a lot of hate for this, but Rhen has never been my favourite. He has gone from being a tortured prince to a torturing prince to a tortured prince again. He just doesn’t seem to develop. Yes, I felt sorry for him, particularly towards the end of the book but I didn’t love him. I nearly did in book 1 but then he ruined it in book 2 and has never redeemed himself. I particularly felt that the ending held no justice for Rhen – there was a clear path for a happily ever after for all and, while I love a good twist, I feel that Kemmerer’s choice of ending kind of kicked Rhen while he was down.
The ending of A Vow So Bold and Deadly definitely paves the way for a spin off book but that feels like it would centre more around Grey and Lia Mara and so I don’t know how much appetite I would have for it. I’d read it but it wouldn’t be top of my TBR.
Overall I liked this book, but I didn’t love it. I had such high expectations after ACSDAL and was willing to overlook AHSFAB as plot filler but this ending fell flat for me. As someone who has read both the book and listened to the audiobook I would recommend the audiobook as it seems to keep you interested in that first few hundred pages where very little happens.
The final book in the Cursebreakers series is a hard thing to come to terms with. Brigid Kemmerer has been messing with our hearts for 2 books so far and she isn’t about to let us go without a fight! Rhen and Grey are on opposite sides of a war, Harper is (deservedly) super mad at Rhen and Lilith has returned, seemingly unharmed. Is there nothing that can stop the enchantress?
Similarly to the previous two books, A Vow so Bold and Deadly is written from multiple POVs but what I loved in comparison to A Heart so Fierce and Broken is that we got a lot more of Harper! I really felt that Lia Mara took a bit of Harper’s “airtime” in the last book.
I also specifically loved the audiobook version because any third party’s speech within a character’s POV is done in that character’s voice – Rhen voicing Lilith is particularly hilarious.
The characters themselves seem to fall in my favour as we progress through the series and AVSBAD was no exception.
I still loved Harper with her fierceness and her sarcasm. I think the physical journey in the book (this is me trying to not give any spoilers) really spoke to her as a character and her unwavering, loyal nature and the fact that her anger towards Rhen took a long time to dissipate felt very real. I also loved her friendship with Zo but I must admit that sometimes Harper did border on petty – I guess she is fairly young though.
Lia Mara was a great character in AHSFAB, she was a breath of fresh air and I really admired her fight for peace in a violent kingdom. However, shacking up with Grey has made this Queen a wet fish! For a woman who has been raised with the notion that you do not need a man to rule Lia Mara severely disappoints. I really didn’t understand her character in the final book, she was unable to stand up for herself and totally dependent on Grey, even pining after him at times. It was sickening.
Grey has been my favourite in both the previous books, even when he was scary Grey! Don’t get me wrong he hasn’t totally changed and it is nice to see his struggles in gaining the loyalty of people in Shyl Shallow BUT his coldness towards Harper and THAT ending….nah it didn’t sit well with me. The fact that Grey has a claim to Emberfall is bad enough (it seems to be the only Kingdom in the fictional universe which includes bastards in the laws of succession) but to completely disregard Rhen is not the Grey the readers know and love.
Speaking of Rhen, and I’m going to get a lot of hate for this, but Rhen has never been my favourite. He has gone from being a tortured prince to a torturing prince to a tortured prince again. He just doesn’t seem to develop. Yes, I felt sorry for him, particularly towards the end of the book but I didn’t love him. I nearly did in book 1 but then he ruined it in book 2 and has never redeemed himself. I particularly felt that the ending held no justice for Rhen – there was a clear path for a happily ever after for all and, while I love a good twist, I feel that Kemmerer’s choice of ending kind of kicked Rhen while he was down.
The ending of A Vow So Bold and Deadly definitely paves the way for a spin off book but that feels like it would centre more around Grey and Lia Mara and so I don’t know how much appetite I would have for it. I’d read it but it wouldn’t be top of my TBR.
Overall I liked this book, but I didn’t love it. I had such high expectations after ACSDAL and was willing to overlook AHSFAB as plot filler but this ending fell flat for me. As someone who has read both the book and listened to the audiobook I would recommend the audiobook as it seems to keep you interested in that first few hundred pages where very little happens.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Never Mind The Bollocks, Here's The Sex Pistols by The Sex Pistols in Music
Nov 2, 2017
The ultimate reset switch on the musical chart machine
This album changed everything and brought rock ‘n roll music back down to ground level where it belongs. It perfectly captured the mindset of a generation and it was the turning point that was so badly needed at that point in musical history. These four lads were saying exactly what they meant and we could hear their pain and frustration through Lydon’s voice as he screamed down the microphone at us. This album is gripping from start to finish and full of strikingly relevant lyrics even today. Without Never Mind The Bollocks, you can forget Oasis or Nirvana or Green Day or any punk band to come after ’77 for that matter. This album had to happen as it totally changed the course of rock ‘n roll history for the better and gave us all what we wanted again. This band is as important to rock ‘n roll music and British culture as the Beatles or the Rolling Stones and they only ever released the one album, that is how important this record is. This album affected the style of an entire generation, it affected the politicians and it gave the how the majority of the country was feeling a united voice. The Tory government and the Royal Family may be scum, but it is hard to argue the fact that they have inspired some of the best music over the last 50 years. This album defines what it means to be young and pissed off and overlooked by the older generations who hold the power. It is an attack launched at anyone who has ever looked down their nose at anyone else. It is the quintessential lesson in how to compose a legendary rock n’ roll album and it reminded the world that you don’t need a bunch of overcomplicated instrumentals or 16 minute long interludes to make a great record, all you need is a few instruments, some raw talent and a determination to tell people how it really is. The Pistols wear their hearts on their sleeve in this record, both through their instruments and their lyrics, there is so much feeling and passion and genuine dissatisfaction on this record, yet it is also so careless and spur of the moment and that combination results in one of the greatest albums of the last half century in my opinion.
If American Idiot is a slap on the wrist of the government and a nudge to change things, Never Mind The Bollocks is the Pistols grabbing the man by the throat and squeezing until he is forced to listen to them. In the years prior to this record coming out, the charts were dominated by songs that were being played on a minimum of 15 different instruments per song. There hadn’t been a record composed solely of a guitar, a drumkit, a bass and a vocal in far too long and The Sex Pistols hit the reset button on rock ‘n roll music going forward. This record had to happen, without it bands like Oasis and Nirvana would never have came to be, or if they did they would sound vastly different to what they do today. This record has an undeniable feeling to it that no other record does, it is fury, frustration, desperation and sadness all at once and for me, there is nothing else in musical history that quite captures that feeling in the same way. This is simply four bored lads with pure raw talent telling us exactly how they feel and making sure not to leave out any of the gory details. Every riff on this album is a violent wake up call, every drum beat feels like a well deserved punch to the face and with Lydon’s voice and lyrics topping it all off, it is a beautifully ugly piece of pop culture that is relevant even today. The Pistols take on everybody in this album, from the Queen, to politics, to record labels and all of it is so well composed and yet so spur of the moment simultaneously. It’s like Lydon is spitting at you but in perfect time and in the most unique way that has ever been put to record. The band had a flair that lit Britain on fire, especially the middle classes, this record got banned out of fear that it would cause the man on the street to rise up and see through the bullshit that politicians and the government try to spin us day in and day out. Every song points out what is wrong with the country and its ethics and policies and it defines the reasons that the public are fed up of it. The whole thing flows so well and even though it takes just under 40 minutes to listen to the entire album from start to finish, it goes by in a flash and leaves such a strong impression that causes you to be left thinking about what you have just heard for hours afterwards. This is a fleeting moment in modern history captured in the most brief, yet poignant way and without it the very culture of Britain would be entirely different. This album is so important, not just for it’s anti establishment themes or its musical reasons, but because it actually altered the course of history beyond just the musical ecosystem. There was never an album before Never The Bollocks that sounded anything like it and there hasn’t been one since and sadly, there probably never will be. The last great rock n’ roll band that the world really took notice of were Oasis and since then there has been nothing significant enough to capture the world’s attention. If you ask me what we need right now is another band like the Sex Pistols to swagger up and take the spotlight away from the dance/pop garbage that is dominating today’s charts. We need a band that can reset the musical machine and show the youth of today that all you need to make it is raw talent, a few instruments and a sprinkle of determination and the world can be yours. I am hopeful it will eventually happen, it has to and in my mind it is inevitable and is more a question of when rather than a question of if. That album is what will resurrect rock n’ roll music and bring it back to the forefront and the group that manages it will be the band that defines their respective generation. Since Oasis split the crown has been up for the taking and all we need is a band with enough balls and talent and who actually have something to say, to reach out and grab it.
If American Idiot is a slap on the wrist of the government and a nudge to change things, Never Mind The Bollocks is the Pistols grabbing the man by the throat and squeezing until he is forced to listen to them. In the years prior to this record coming out, the charts were dominated by songs that were being played on a minimum of 15 different instruments per song. There hadn’t been a record composed solely of a guitar, a drumkit, a bass and a vocal in far too long and The Sex Pistols hit the reset button on rock ‘n roll music going forward. This record had to happen, without it bands like Oasis and Nirvana would never have came to be, or if they did they would sound vastly different to what they do today. This record has an undeniable feeling to it that no other record does, it is fury, frustration, desperation and sadness all at once and for me, there is nothing else in musical history that quite captures that feeling in the same way. This is simply four bored lads with pure raw talent telling us exactly how they feel and making sure not to leave out any of the gory details. Every riff on this album is a violent wake up call, every drum beat feels like a well deserved punch to the face and with Lydon’s voice and lyrics topping it all off, it is a beautifully ugly piece of pop culture that is relevant even today. The Pistols take on everybody in this album, from the Queen, to politics, to record labels and all of it is so well composed and yet so spur of the moment simultaneously. It’s like Lydon is spitting at you but in perfect time and in the most unique way that has ever been put to record. The band had a flair that lit Britain on fire, especially the middle classes, this record got banned out of fear that it would cause the man on the street to rise up and see through the bullshit that politicians and the government try to spin us day in and day out. Every song points out what is wrong with the country and its ethics and policies and it defines the reasons that the public are fed up of it. The whole thing flows so well and even though it takes just under 40 minutes to listen to the entire album from start to finish, it goes by in a flash and leaves such a strong impression that causes you to be left thinking about what you have just heard for hours afterwards. This is a fleeting moment in modern history captured in the most brief, yet poignant way and without it the very culture of Britain would be entirely different. This album is so important, not just for it’s anti establishment themes or its musical reasons, but because it actually altered the course of history beyond just the musical ecosystem. There was never an album before Never The Bollocks that sounded anything like it and there hasn’t been one since and sadly, there probably never will be. The last great rock n’ roll band that the world really took notice of were Oasis and since then there has been nothing significant enough to capture the world’s attention. If you ask me what we need right now is another band like the Sex Pistols to swagger up and take the spotlight away from the dance/pop garbage that is dominating today’s charts. We need a band that can reset the musical machine and show the youth of today that all you need to make it is raw talent, a few instruments and a sprinkle of determination and the world can be yours. I am hopeful it will eventually happen, it has to and in my mind it is inevitable and is more a question of when rather than a question of if. That album is what will resurrect rock n’ roll music and bring it back to the forefront and the group that manages it will be the band that defines their respective generation. Since Oasis split the crown has been up for the taking and all we need is a band with enough balls and talent and who actually have something to say, to reach out and grab it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Savages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over the past 15 years, Oliver Stone’s films have been kind of hit or miss to me. It’s as if Stone is still trying to make the same controversial films he became popular for in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only, as an audience, we have become keen to his filmmaking style and therefore his more recent work suffers from the apathy of a “show me something new” culture. Still, despite his failures, Stone does not makes apologies for his work while he continues in his quest to make films about controversial subjects. This time around Stone strives to take us into the violent world of the Mexican drug cartels though a film adaptation of the novel Savages by Don Winslow.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Serenity (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Years ago, Star Trek found new life after network cancellation, and gained new legions of fans through syndication, films, spin off series, and countless novels.
While networks have often had a love/hate relationship with Science Fiction shows, few can debate that shows such as Battlestar Galactica, Smallville, Buffy, and The X-Files have proven to be profitable investments for the studios that created them.
Sadly for fans and viewers alike, for every hit there are at least three failures such as The Lone Gunmen, Space Rangers, and Earth 2. Then you get the shows such as Enterprise, Crusade and Firefly that get cancelled before their time, leaving legions of fans to ponder what might have been had the shows been allowed to continue their productions.
When FOX cancelled the show Firefly after a handful of episodes, fans were outraged. The show had developed a loyal following, but did not meet what the studio was after, leaving it as just another failed series.
Thanks to strong DVD sales, the shows creator Joss Whedon was given the chance to bring his series to the big screen and after months and months of delays, the film Serenity has finally been released.
I would like to say at the outset that while I was not a fan of the show, I did catch it in reruns and grew to appreciate much of the quality that was in the show. With my new found appreciation of the show and amidst the wave of growing hype around the release, I attended an early screener of the film several weeks back anxious to see what the excitement was all about.
The film revolves around the crew of a Firefly class ship named Serenity whose Captain Mal (Nathan Fillion), is a former soldier who survived the battle of Serenity Valley during a period of galactic unrest. Mal makes a living as rogue trying to stay ahead of the Alliance and various threats such as the deadly cannibalistic Reavers.
The story involves a young girl named River (Summer Glau) and her physician brother Simon (Sean Maher). The two are fleeing the Alliance where River was being honed to be a weapon of amazing abilities.
In the aftermath of a mission where the deadly Reavers arrive, Mal and the crew find themselves fleeing an Alliance assassin, who has brought the overwhelming might of the Alliance to bear in an effort to capture River.
Of course Mal with no love of the Alliance will not allow this even though many in his crew see new harm in saving their necks by turning her over. As the film unfolds it leads to the discovery of why the Alliance is so desperate to keep the knowledge River has obtained a secret and a deadly confrontation between the crew, the Reavers, and the Alliance.
As much as I tried to like this film, I was unable to. The film plods along for almost 90 minutes before getting to any sustained action, and when it finally does arrive, it is so by the book and underwhelming, I felt cheated. Two gigantic fleets converge and I think we are going to get a grand battle. Instead, the film gives us about 90 seconds of action only to take the story to a bland locale in a poorly decorated and conceived set.
After sitting through such a large setup, and enduring a cast that often is about as exciting in this film as watching paint dry, I thought something more should be done. I would have expected this from a show that was on television, but for a film version, it was lacking much of the energy that is needed to maintain a feature films.
I am not saying that the cast are bad actors, far from it, but they spend a lot of the film with a dear in the headlights look that underscores that this is first and foremost a TV. show. As such, the cast and many of the sets and effects seem underpowered in the transition to the screen.
The entire length of the film, I thought I was watching an inexpensive television series rather than a major studio release. As such, I had a hard time caring for the characters.
A few nights ago I watched another episode of the series on the Sci Fi Channel and I was amazed at how interesting the characters were, how engrossing the story was, and how much humor and action it had. While the film attempts to convey this, much of it falls flat. Serenity will make a good film series with a bit more effort, but as it stands now, the film is little more than a TV movie of the week for die hard fans only. This is sad as with a bit more polish it could have, and should have been much, much more.
While networks have often had a love/hate relationship with Science Fiction shows, few can debate that shows such as Battlestar Galactica, Smallville, Buffy, and The X-Files have proven to be profitable investments for the studios that created them.
Sadly for fans and viewers alike, for every hit there are at least three failures such as The Lone Gunmen, Space Rangers, and Earth 2. Then you get the shows such as Enterprise, Crusade and Firefly that get cancelled before their time, leaving legions of fans to ponder what might have been had the shows been allowed to continue their productions.
When FOX cancelled the show Firefly after a handful of episodes, fans were outraged. The show had developed a loyal following, but did not meet what the studio was after, leaving it as just another failed series.
Thanks to strong DVD sales, the shows creator Joss Whedon was given the chance to bring his series to the big screen and after months and months of delays, the film Serenity has finally been released.
I would like to say at the outset that while I was not a fan of the show, I did catch it in reruns and grew to appreciate much of the quality that was in the show. With my new found appreciation of the show and amidst the wave of growing hype around the release, I attended an early screener of the film several weeks back anxious to see what the excitement was all about.
The film revolves around the crew of a Firefly class ship named Serenity whose Captain Mal (Nathan Fillion), is a former soldier who survived the battle of Serenity Valley during a period of galactic unrest. Mal makes a living as rogue trying to stay ahead of the Alliance and various threats such as the deadly cannibalistic Reavers.
The story involves a young girl named River (Summer Glau) and her physician brother Simon (Sean Maher). The two are fleeing the Alliance where River was being honed to be a weapon of amazing abilities.
In the aftermath of a mission where the deadly Reavers arrive, Mal and the crew find themselves fleeing an Alliance assassin, who has brought the overwhelming might of the Alliance to bear in an effort to capture River.
Of course Mal with no love of the Alliance will not allow this even though many in his crew see new harm in saving their necks by turning her over. As the film unfolds it leads to the discovery of why the Alliance is so desperate to keep the knowledge River has obtained a secret and a deadly confrontation between the crew, the Reavers, and the Alliance.
As much as I tried to like this film, I was unable to. The film plods along for almost 90 minutes before getting to any sustained action, and when it finally does arrive, it is so by the book and underwhelming, I felt cheated. Two gigantic fleets converge and I think we are going to get a grand battle. Instead, the film gives us about 90 seconds of action only to take the story to a bland locale in a poorly decorated and conceived set.
After sitting through such a large setup, and enduring a cast that often is about as exciting in this film as watching paint dry, I thought something more should be done. I would have expected this from a show that was on television, but for a film version, it was lacking much of the energy that is needed to maintain a feature films.
I am not saying that the cast are bad actors, far from it, but they spend a lot of the film with a dear in the headlights look that underscores that this is first and foremost a TV. show. As such, the cast and many of the sets and effects seem underpowered in the transition to the screen.
The entire length of the film, I thought I was watching an inexpensive television series rather than a major studio release. As such, I had a hard time caring for the characters.
A few nights ago I watched another episode of the series on the Sci Fi Channel and I was amazed at how interesting the characters were, how engrossing the story was, and how much humor and action it had. While the film attempts to convey this, much of it falls flat. Serenity will make a good film series with a bit more effort, but as it stands now, the film is little more than a TV movie of the week for die hard fans only. This is sad as with a bit more polish it could have, and should have been much, much more.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Nations: The Dice Game in Tabletop Games
Aug 16, 2019 (Updated Jul 17, 2021)
If you have been around board games over the past several years you will notice trends here and there. Some games came out with smaller, easier to digest, versions of themselves as card games, or roll-and-writes, or in this case: dice games. The goal is to get the same kind of feeling and experience as playing the older sibling in a much smaller and time-friendly spin-off. I have played Nations (the original big game) before, but does Nations: The Dice Game give a similar feel?
Nations: The Dice Game (can I please just call it Nations for this review as we know I am not talking about the original? Thanks.) is a civilization building, upgrade tile drafting, dice game for one to four players. Players will be upgrading their civilizations over four game rounds to compete for Books and VPs. The player with the most VP at the end of the game is the winner.
Disclaimer: The photos shown here is for a solo game, as I took them during my learning game using the solo rules. Normally the purple d4 is not used in multiplayer games. -T
To setup, each player will choose a starter civilization mat, receive five white dice, a gold chit, and a re-roll chit. Player order will be determined by cards and each player will receive their player order card which doubles as a reference card (great idea). The Progress Board will be set on the table and populated with randomized Age I Progress tiles according to the rule book. The Score Board will also be placed on the table to track Books, Events, and final VPs. The game begins with each player rolling their five dice.
Nations (TDG) is played over four ages with multiple rounds per age. At the beginning of each age old tiles will be removed from the Progress Board and new ones for the current age added. Also an Event tile will be drawn and placed on the Score Board to signify goals for Famine and War at the end of the age. On a player’s turn they will take one action from the following: Re-Roll (any or all unused dice by spending a re-roll chit), Buy tile (from the Progress Board to upgrade player mat spaces and dice), or Build Wonder (tile using Stone dice or chits for VP). When a player has taken as many turns/actions they wish for the age, they turn their player order card to the side to indicate they have passed for the remainder of the age.
Once all players have passed, they will tally their unused dice and any chits showing Books to be recorded on the Book track. Players will score points for Books based on how many opponents they have outscored for Books. Then players will consult the face-up Event tile that was revealed at the beginning of the round. The top portion displays VP earned when players discard unused dice and chits showing Famine leaf icons matching or exceeding what is on the Event tile. Similarly, for War players will consult the Event tile and use the sword icons on unused dice and chits to score any VPs for War. Play continues in this way across all four ages and once the fourth age has been scored the game ends and winner named victorious!
Components. I have mostly good news here. The dice in this dice game are wonderful. They are all easy to read and understand, and feel great when rolling nine or ten of them at once. The chits are fine, the Progress and Event tiles are nice and thick. The player mats, Score Board, and Progress Board are very thin though. I was going to give that a negative remark, but you know, players don’t really handle them during the game so there is no real need for them to be any thicker. The art is similar as in Nations, and while it does not resonate with me, it is fine. I won’t be playing Nations for the art.
All in all the game is fine. It didn’t blow me away or completely replace Nations (the big game) for me. It IS a pretty quick game to play, so there is one definite improvement over the big brother game; 10-15 minutes per player is pretty spot on. I usually do not prefer dice games to the originals (BANG! The Dice Game being the obvious improvement), and this one is really just on par with the big game. While it takes up less space on the shelf, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it over its sibling. I feel the same way about each game, so my recommendation is get the version you feel would be played more often. Purple Phoenix Games gives Nations: The Dice Game a Montezuma-should-be-in-Age-IV 6 / 12. Give it a shot if you are into dice games, but grab the original if you want something meatier.
Nations: The Dice Game (can I please just call it Nations for this review as we know I am not talking about the original? Thanks.) is a civilization building, upgrade tile drafting, dice game for one to four players. Players will be upgrading their civilizations over four game rounds to compete for Books and VPs. The player with the most VP at the end of the game is the winner.
Disclaimer: The photos shown here is for a solo game, as I took them during my learning game using the solo rules. Normally the purple d4 is not used in multiplayer games. -T
To setup, each player will choose a starter civilization mat, receive five white dice, a gold chit, and a re-roll chit. Player order will be determined by cards and each player will receive their player order card which doubles as a reference card (great idea). The Progress Board will be set on the table and populated with randomized Age I Progress tiles according to the rule book. The Score Board will also be placed on the table to track Books, Events, and final VPs. The game begins with each player rolling their five dice.
Nations (TDG) is played over four ages with multiple rounds per age. At the beginning of each age old tiles will be removed from the Progress Board and new ones for the current age added. Also an Event tile will be drawn and placed on the Score Board to signify goals for Famine and War at the end of the age. On a player’s turn they will take one action from the following: Re-Roll (any or all unused dice by spending a re-roll chit), Buy tile (from the Progress Board to upgrade player mat spaces and dice), or Build Wonder (tile using Stone dice or chits for VP). When a player has taken as many turns/actions they wish for the age, they turn their player order card to the side to indicate they have passed for the remainder of the age.
Once all players have passed, they will tally their unused dice and any chits showing Books to be recorded on the Book track. Players will score points for Books based on how many opponents they have outscored for Books. Then players will consult the face-up Event tile that was revealed at the beginning of the round. The top portion displays VP earned when players discard unused dice and chits showing Famine leaf icons matching or exceeding what is on the Event tile. Similarly, for War players will consult the Event tile and use the sword icons on unused dice and chits to score any VPs for War. Play continues in this way across all four ages and once the fourth age has been scored the game ends and winner named victorious!
Components. I have mostly good news here. The dice in this dice game are wonderful. They are all easy to read and understand, and feel great when rolling nine or ten of them at once. The chits are fine, the Progress and Event tiles are nice and thick. The player mats, Score Board, and Progress Board are very thin though. I was going to give that a negative remark, but you know, players don’t really handle them during the game so there is no real need for them to be any thicker. The art is similar as in Nations, and while it does not resonate with me, it is fine. I won’t be playing Nations for the art.
All in all the game is fine. It didn’t blow me away or completely replace Nations (the big game) for me. It IS a pretty quick game to play, so there is one definite improvement over the big brother game; 10-15 minutes per player is pretty spot on. I usually do not prefer dice games to the originals (BANG! The Dice Game being the obvious improvement), and this one is really just on par with the big game. While it takes up less space on the shelf, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it over its sibling. I feel the same way about each game, so my recommendation is get the version you feel would be played more often. Purple Phoenix Games gives Nations: The Dice Game a Montezuma-should-be-in-Age-IV 6 / 12. Give it a shot if you are into dice games, but grab the original if you want something meatier.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Thank goodness for retro screenings. I hadn't seen The Shining before but it's one of those things that gets parodied and mentioned so often that you think you might have actually seen it. Cineworld put it on so I made the time to go, there's a review coming soon... you know I'm not logical enough to have done it first!
Dan Torrance has grown up a lot since the events at The Overlook Hotel. The Shining is still with him and his self-destructive coping mechanisms are taking a toll on him. Constantly on the move, he's running from himself as well as a cult that are hunting him around the country.
Dan finds himself in a small town where he meets Billy. Billy recognises the signs of someone trying to find themselves and takes Dan under his wing, finding him a place to stay, a job, and a way to get his life back on track.
The Shining becomes a much more productive part of his life and somehow bring him a message from Abra, a young girl with powers even stronger than his. As the cult gets closer to her he knows he has to help, but that will mean going to a place he swore he'd never go again.
Cinema is going through a very big reboot/franchise phase at the moment, this week at the cinema we were showing 8 things that are follow-ups, spin-offs or reimaginings. I don't think I can commit to saying it's a good or bad thing but it does mean I get to at least see some older films as well. With things like Doctor Sleep, Dark Fate, and Halloween last year, I became very aware that I like the nostalgic homage that these films are for their predecessors. In Doctor Sleep we've got the original locations aged up, the same scenic shots and music, and a sneaky cameo from the original Danny. With The Shining so fresh in my mind it was nice to be able to spot these things.
Ewan McGregor was a top choice for the role of Danny, he's a great actor and every moment he was on screen became very real. Dan starts his journey as a mess, an alcoholic with a severe conscience that tries to set him on the right path. You see his desperation and you get the sense he's almost lost himself. McGregor successfully portrays him from rock bottom to redemption and there's a great balance from him throughout the film.
Pitting off against our good guys is Rebecca Ferguson as Rose The Hat. Rose is the leader of the cult and she has the ability to find people who possess the Shining. She makes a pretty convincing job of the supernatural elements and has got sexy-but-sinister down to a fine art. Most of her role is fairly heavy on the evil side and that was great, but she does get one scene where she's on the other side and, like McGregor, is able to do the polar opposite state so well that it comes across entirely believable.
In support roles we have Cliff Curtis who is consistently good in everything he does (but wronged deeply by this film) and Kyliegh Curran as Abra who I thought did a magnificent job, hopefully we'll be seeing her get more roles in the not too distant future.
There weren't any characters or actors that didn't fit in, the cast overall worked really well together in that respect. There are just two choices that I had slight personal quibbles with... Snakebite Andi gets recruited to the cult after Rose finds out about her special talent, that all worked perfectly well but once she's in the character pretty much vanishes until she's needed for a plot point. That seems like a massive waste of a great thread to me. The second is the bartender, I see what they were trying to do but I honestly hated it, it felt creepily wrong.
The sets and general feel of the film are good, but there's one moment in the effects that made my eyes roll. It's a nice way to convey the power that Rose uses but it is visually terrible, had that been better this could have been a 4.5. I feel that at this point though it's traditional for a Stephen King adaptation to have something that makes me go "WTF?!"
I enjoyed the journey Doctor Sleep took the characters on, I won't be the judge of how it compares to the source material or The Shining, but if you're a new fan like me then this will hopefully come across as a great watch. There are some amazing performances on show and Curran is definitely one to watch in the future.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/doctor-sleep-movie-review.html
Dan Torrance has grown up a lot since the events at The Overlook Hotel. The Shining is still with him and his self-destructive coping mechanisms are taking a toll on him. Constantly on the move, he's running from himself as well as a cult that are hunting him around the country.
Dan finds himself in a small town where he meets Billy. Billy recognises the signs of someone trying to find themselves and takes Dan under his wing, finding him a place to stay, a job, and a way to get his life back on track.
The Shining becomes a much more productive part of his life and somehow bring him a message from Abra, a young girl with powers even stronger than his. As the cult gets closer to her he knows he has to help, but that will mean going to a place he swore he'd never go again.
Cinema is going through a very big reboot/franchise phase at the moment, this week at the cinema we were showing 8 things that are follow-ups, spin-offs or reimaginings. I don't think I can commit to saying it's a good or bad thing but it does mean I get to at least see some older films as well. With things like Doctor Sleep, Dark Fate, and Halloween last year, I became very aware that I like the nostalgic homage that these films are for their predecessors. In Doctor Sleep we've got the original locations aged up, the same scenic shots and music, and a sneaky cameo from the original Danny. With The Shining so fresh in my mind it was nice to be able to spot these things.
Ewan McGregor was a top choice for the role of Danny, he's a great actor and every moment he was on screen became very real. Dan starts his journey as a mess, an alcoholic with a severe conscience that tries to set him on the right path. You see his desperation and you get the sense he's almost lost himself. McGregor successfully portrays him from rock bottom to redemption and there's a great balance from him throughout the film.
Pitting off against our good guys is Rebecca Ferguson as Rose The Hat. Rose is the leader of the cult and she has the ability to find people who possess the Shining. She makes a pretty convincing job of the supernatural elements and has got sexy-but-sinister down to a fine art. Most of her role is fairly heavy on the evil side and that was great, but she does get one scene where she's on the other side and, like McGregor, is able to do the polar opposite state so well that it comes across entirely believable.
In support roles we have Cliff Curtis who is consistently good in everything he does (but wronged deeply by this film) and Kyliegh Curran as Abra who I thought did a magnificent job, hopefully we'll be seeing her get more roles in the not too distant future.
There weren't any characters or actors that didn't fit in, the cast overall worked really well together in that respect. There are just two choices that I had slight personal quibbles with... Snakebite Andi gets recruited to the cult after Rose finds out about her special talent, that all worked perfectly well but once she's in the character pretty much vanishes until she's needed for a plot point. That seems like a massive waste of a great thread to me. The second is the bartender, I see what they were trying to do but I honestly hated it, it felt creepily wrong.
The sets and general feel of the film are good, but there's one moment in the effects that made my eyes roll. It's a nice way to convey the power that Rose uses but it is visually terrible, had that been better this could have been a 4.5. I feel that at this point though it's traditional for a Stephen King adaptation to have something that makes me go "WTF?!"
I enjoyed the journey Doctor Sleep took the characters on, I won't be the judge of how it compares to the source material or The Shining, but if you're a new fan like me then this will hopefully come across as a great watch. There are some amazing performances on show and Curran is definitely one to watch in the future.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/doctor-sleep-movie-review.html
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The God Game in Books
Nov 7, 2019
While browsing Facebook one day, I came across a book entitled The God Game by Danny Tobey. I was intrigued, so I decided to read more about it. After reading the synopsis, this book reeled me in. I decided to give it a read, and I am very glad I did. The God Game has become one of my favorite reads so far.
With the way the digital age is going, the plot of The God Game sounded like it could already be happening in real life. A bunch of teens decide to play a random game with what they suspect is just some kind of artificial intelligence. However, when God (the AI in The God Game) starts asking them to do some highly illegal and dangerous activities as well as activities that make the teens question their morality, they start to think that maybe they are in over their heads. Will the teens be able to quit the game or will death be the only way out? Don't get me wrong. The plot has been done before, but Danny Tobey put his own original spin on the idea and made it where it comes across as a fresh idea. As I mentioned earlier, The God Game comes across as being very realistic. While I feel that there are no major plot twists and that the book is fairly predictable in some places, The God Game is still a highly entertaining read. Tobey gives his readers enough information at the end of the book to leave them satisfied, but he still leaves it somewhat open ended for a possible sequel.
The God Game flowed very smoothly, and I felt like the pacing was perfect. Not once did I feel like the book became too dull or that it was going to fast. The transitions between chapters was very spot on which made The God Game an easy read for me. It was so easy to lose myself in this novel as I became completely immersed in the world Tobey had created.
A couple of things that kind of bothered me, and they seem to be more personal preference than a fault with the story, is the mentions of politics and how anti-God/Christianity The God Game seemed to be. I'm not a political person by any means. In fact, I don't lean one way or the other when it comes to politics. However, I felt like politics were mentioned way too much in this book. It's very obvious that the author is very anti-Trump. If I wanted to read a book about politics, I'd read a political thriller or something similar. I didn't like how this book seems to poke fun at those that believe in God. It comes across as if the author is trying to challenge the beliefs of those who believe in God. I get that The God Game has God in its title and is about an AI that believes it's God, but I felt that the way the author speaks about God came off as a bit crass. However, those were minor issues for me, and I still enjoyed reading The God Game very much.
I felt that all of the main and supporting characters in The God Game were written superbly. The God Game had such a diverse group of characters throughout which was refreshing to see. I enjoyed reading about Charlie and his thoughts. He seemed conflicted the most with everything that was happening. It was great to read about how much he cared about his friends as well as other people. Charlie came across as a stand up guy. Vanhi was my favorite character. She was such a badass that I couldn't help but to love her! I felt like she was the second most conflicted character. I just felt sorry for what Alex was going through. My heart ached for him. Kenny was a great character too, and it was interesting what the game would ask him to do. I never quite knew what to make of Peter. He was written well, and he came across as very charismatic which made me suspicious of him throughout the whole novel. I did admire how much he would throw himself into something though.
Trigger warnings for The God Game include violence, profanity, drug use, politics, challenging the existence of God, racism, sexual situations (although not graphic), and murder.
Overall, The God Game is a highly thrilling read. With such an interesting cast of characters as well as a highly thought provoking plot, I wouldn't be surprised if The God Game became one of the most sought after books of 2020. It would also make a great film. I would definitely recommend The God Game by Danny Tobey to those aged 16+ who love thrilling plots that really make you think. Give The God Game a read. It will sink its teeth in you from the very first page!
--
(A special thank you to St. Martin's Press for providing me with a paperback ARC of The God Game by Danny Tobey in exchange for an unbiased and honest review.)
With the way the digital age is going, the plot of The God Game sounded like it could already be happening in real life. A bunch of teens decide to play a random game with what they suspect is just some kind of artificial intelligence. However, when God (the AI in The God Game) starts asking them to do some highly illegal and dangerous activities as well as activities that make the teens question their morality, they start to think that maybe they are in over their heads. Will the teens be able to quit the game or will death be the only way out? Don't get me wrong. The plot has been done before, but Danny Tobey put his own original spin on the idea and made it where it comes across as a fresh idea. As I mentioned earlier, The God Game comes across as being very realistic. While I feel that there are no major plot twists and that the book is fairly predictable in some places, The God Game is still a highly entertaining read. Tobey gives his readers enough information at the end of the book to leave them satisfied, but he still leaves it somewhat open ended for a possible sequel.
The God Game flowed very smoothly, and I felt like the pacing was perfect. Not once did I feel like the book became too dull or that it was going to fast. The transitions between chapters was very spot on which made The God Game an easy read for me. It was so easy to lose myself in this novel as I became completely immersed in the world Tobey had created.
A couple of things that kind of bothered me, and they seem to be more personal preference than a fault with the story, is the mentions of politics and how anti-God/Christianity The God Game seemed to be. I'm not a political person by any means. In fact, I don't lean one way or the other when it comes to politics. However, I felt like politics were mentioned way too much in this book. It's very obvious that the author is very anti-Trump. If I wanted to read a book about politics, I'd read a political thriller or something similar. I didn't like how this book seems to poke fun at those that believe in God. It comes across as if the author is trying to challenge the beliefs of those who believe in God. I get that The God Game has God in its title and is about an AI that believes it's God, but I felt that the way the author speaks about God came off as a bit crass. However, those were minor issues for me, and I still enjoyed reading The God Game very much.
I felt that all of the main and supporting characters in The God Game were written superbly. The God Game had such a diverse group of characters throughout which was refreshing to see. I enjoyed reading about Charlie and his thoughts. He seemed conflicted the most with everything that was happening. It was great to read about how much he cared about his friends as well as other people. Charlie came across as a stand up guy. Vanhi was my favorite character. She was such a badass that I couldn't help but to love her! I felt like she was the second most conflicted character. I just felt sorry for what Alex was going through. My heart ached for him. Kenny was a great character too, and it was interesting what the game would ask him to do. I never quite knew what to make of Peter. He was written well, and he came across as very charismatic which made me suspicious of him throughout the whole novel. I did admire how much he would throw himself into something though.
Trigger warnings for The God Game include violence, profanity, drug use, politics, challenging the existence of God, racism, sexual situations (although not graphic), and murder.
Overall, The God Game is a highly thrilling read. With such an interesting cast of characters as well as a highly thought provoking plot, I wouldn't be surprised if The God Game became one of the most sought after books of 2020. It would also make a great film. I would definitely recommend The God Game by Danny Tobey to those aged 16+ who love thrilling plots that really make you think. Give The God Game a read. It will sink its teeth in you from the very first page!
--
(A special thank you to St. Martin's Press for providing me with a paperback ARC of The God Game by Danny Tobey in exchange for an unbiased and honest review.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Smashbomb (4687 KP) created a post in Smashbomb AMA
Jul 12, 2019
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Many Saints of Newark (2021) in Movies
Oct 12, 2021
The "non-Sopranos" part of this film worked much better
The new Sopranos prequel film THE MANY SAINTS OF NEWARK is a review-proof film. Most people fall into 1 of 2 camps.
The first, fans of the 1999-2007 landmark HBO series that some (including myself) call one of the best TV series of all time. The folks that fall into this camp will be checking this film out no matter what.
The second are folks that either never saw the series or have only a passing knowledge of it - these folks are (more than likely) gonna take a pass at this film.
And both camps would be right and wrong for THE MANY SAINTS OF NEWARK is a middle-of-the-road film that will be satisfying for SOPRANOS fans, but the part of this film that really, really works well has nothing to do with the series.
Written by Sopranos creator David Chase, TMSON is set in the late 1960’s-early 1970’s and tells the tale of a young Tony Soprano and his introduction to the North Jersey mafia and the charismatic mob boss who he is drawn to.
The first 15 minutes of this film were written specifically for SOPRANOS fans for it is here that you are introduced to younger versions of many of your favorite characters. From Tony to Uncle Junior to Livia (Tony’s Mom) to Pauly Walnuts, Silvio and “Big Pussy” they are all there - along with a few others you don’t know (and it is not a spoiler to say, there is a reason that they never made it to the TV series). You are also introduced to Tony’s Father Johnny Soprano, Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti and the center of this film, the son of the Boss “Uncle” Dickie Moltisanti (father of future TV Series character Christopher).
It’s an enjoyable enough introduction, but it is nothing new. The characters sit around, talk, act tough and eat. Something that we’ve seen in countless mob movies before. Chase and Director Alan Taylor (THOR: THE DARK WORLD) appear somewhat bored with this part of the film - almost as if they are saying “here they all are, enjoy this for we have a more interesting story to tell”. This first 15 minutes of the film seem to go on forever.
And then the movie - and Chase’s ideas and Taylor’s Direction - kick in.
And this is where TMSON begins to escalate as the story splits into 2 parts - the first following Dickie (Alessandro Nivola) and the 2nd following one of his “runners” (Leslie Odom, Jr.) who is destined to become a powerful boss of the “Black Mafia”.
It’s a smart juxtaposition of story, but unfortunately for SOPRANO’s fans, the first story (following Dickie) and including most of the Soprano’s characters is the less interesting of the 2 stories. It is the journey of Leslie Odom, Jr.’s character that makes for a more compelling story. It is as if Chase had an interesting idea for a mob film but knew he would not be able to get it made unless he tied it somewhat to a Sopranos story.
Leslie Odom Jr. is magnetic as Harold McBrayer, the former numbers runner for Dickie that has an awaking through the Black Power movement of the late ‘60’s and becomes a formidable mob boss in his own right. This half of the movie/story is intriguing and interesting for you never know in what direction it is going to land. This “B” story is free to be whatever it wants/needs to be and this freedom elevates it.
The same cannot be said for the “A” story - the journey of Dickie Moltisanti. Alessandro Nivola is charming enough as this sadistic, sociopathic mobster, but he is saddled with too much TV show baggage to become a character on his own. Specifically his mentorship and (ultimate) disassociation with the young Tony Soprano (played by Michael Gandolfini, the son of the late James Gandolfini who played Tony in the TV series). I felt like these characters were burdened with the weight of the TV show and the need to pay homage to what will be coming in their lives via the TV show and to shoehorn in each character along the way.
Consequently some great actors like Vera Farmiga (Tony’s mother Livia), Jon Bernthal (Tony’s father), and Corey Stoll (as Uncle Junior) are all filming extended cameos. They do a good (enough) job bringing the essence of the characters from the TV Series to this film, but they just don’t have enough to do. I would love for these 3 to spin-off on their own.
The same can be said for Billy Magnussen (Pauly), John Magaro (Silvio) and Samson Moeakiola (Big Pussy). They all do a nice job bringing the younger versions of these characters to life (especailly Magaro) but they just don’t have enough to do.
And then there is Ray Liotta’s over-the-top performance as Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti. Ove-the-top doesn’t even begin to describe the performance he is giving. I will give him credit, though, he does tone it down about 1/2 way through the film, but…geez…the first part…wow.
Ultimately, the failure of the “A” story to captivate dooms this movie to mediocre status. I would have loved for Chase to really sink his teeth into the “B” story - and to let Leslie Odom Jr. really fly as a character and and actor.
But that would have defeated the purpose of making a Sopranos prequel - a prequel that, perhaps, shouldn’t have been made in the first place.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The first, fans of the 1999-2007 landmark HBO series that some (including myself) call one of the best TV series of all time. The folks that fall into this camp will be checking this film out no matter what.
The second are folks that either never saw the series or have only a passing knowledge of it - these folks are (more than likely) gonna take a pass at this film.
And both camps would be right and wrong for THE MANY SAINTS OF NEWARK is a middle-of-the-road film that will be satisfying for SOPRANOS fans, but the part of this film that really, really works well has nothing to do with the series.
Written by Sopranos creator David Chase, TMSON is set in the late 1960’s-early 1970’s and tells the tale of a young Tony Soprano and his introduction to the North Jersey mafia and the charismatic mob boss who he is drawn to.
The first 15 minutes of this film were written specifically for SOPRANOS fans for it is here that you are introduced to younger versions of many of your favorite characters. From Tony to Uncle Junior to Livia (Tony’s Mom) to Pauly Walnuts, Silvio and “Big Pussy” they are all there - along with a few others you don’t know (and it is not a spoiler to say, there is a reason that they never made it to the TV series). You are also introduced to Tony’s Father Johnny Soprano, Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti and the center of this film, the son of the Boss “Uncle” Dickie Moltisanti (father of future TV Series character Christopher).
It’s an enjoyable enough introduction, but it is nothing new. The characters sit around, talk, act tough and eat. Something that we’ve seen in countless mob movies before. Chase and Director Alan Taylor (THOR: THE DARK WORLD) appear somewhat bored with this part of the film - almost as if they are saying “here they all are, enjoy this for we have a more interesting story to tell”. This first 15 minutes of the film seem to go on forever.
And then the movie - and Chase’s ideas and Taylor’s Direction - kick in.
And this is where TMSON begins to escalate as the story splits into 2 parts - the first following Dickie (Alessandro Nivola) and the 2nd following one of his “runners” (Leslie Odom, Jr.) who is destined to become a powerful boss of the “Black Mafia”.
It’s a smart juxtaposition of story, but unfortunately for SOPRANO’s fans, the first story (following Dickie) and including most of the Soprano’s characters is the less interesting of the 2 stories. It is the journey of Leslie Odom, Jr.’s character that makes for a more compelling story. It is as if Chase had an interesting idea for a mob film but knew he would not be able to get it made unless he tied it somewhat to a Sopranos story.
Leslie Odom Jr. is magnetic as Harold McBrayer, the former numbers runner for Dickie that has an awaking through the Black Power movement of the late ‘60’s and becomes a formidable mob boss in his own right. This half of the movie/story is intriguing and interesting for you never know in what direction it is going to land. This “B” story is free to be whatever it wants/needs to be and this freedom elevates it.
The same cannot be said for the “A” story - the journey of Dickie Moltisanti. Alessandro Nivola is charming enough as this sadistic, sociopathic mobster, but he is saddled with too much TV show baggage to become a character on his own. Specifically his mentorship and (ultimate) disassociation with the young Tony Soprano (played by Michael Gandolfini, the son of the late James Gandolfini who played Tony in the TV series). I felt like these characters were burdened with the weight of the TV show and the need to pay homage to what will be coming in their lives via the TV show and to shoehorn in each character along the way.
Consequently some great actors like Vera Farmiga (Tony’s mother Livia), Jon Bernthal (Tony’s father), and Corey Stoll (as Uncle Junior) are all filming extended cameos. They do a good (enough) job bringing the essence of the characters from the TV Series to this film, but they just don’t have enough to do. I would love for these 3 to spin-off on their own.
The same can be said for Billy Magnussen (Pauly), John Magaro (Silvio) and Samson Moeakiola (Big Pussy). They all do a nice job bringing the younger versions of these characters to life (especailly Magaro) but they just don’t have enough to do.
And then there is Ray Liotta’s over-the-top performance as Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti. Ove-the-top doesn’t even begin to describe the performance he is giving. I will give him credit, though, he does tone it down about 1/2 way through the film, but…geez…the first part…wow.
Ultimately, the failure of the “A” story to captivate dooms this movie to mediocre status. I would have loved for Chase to really sink his teeth into the “B” story - and to let Leslie Odom Jr. really fly as a character and and actor.
But that would have defeated the purpose of making a Sopranos prequel - a prequel that, perhaps, shouldn’t have been made in the first place.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)